I've tried tons of floppies tons of drives tons of machines. Many disks don't work. I once collected all the floppies in my house stacked them up, make some purty TOMSRTBT labels and proceded to put the foot high stack through the TOMSRTBT install script about 15% worked. I don't know mabey its just me.
I'm sure MS uses Cisco PIX firewalls, not some ghetto 486 with openbsd
Well there obvisiously using Cisco because Cisco poses the least direct competition. However, a PIII OpenBSD box makes an excellent firewall for and incomming T3. Ditto for 486 w/ cable. However being Cisco products serve a limited functionality compared to a PC, for high end applications a dedicated firewall or dedicated router firewall product would be most cost effective.
I read someting somewhere about a drive in dev putting 30-40mb on a standard floppy?.
Well I'm no expert in Magnetic storage but I'll tell you the average 3.5"" floppy won't successfully take a 1.72 meg low level format after a couple of months on the shelf. If you ever tried getting TOMSRTBT on a floppy you know what I'm talking about.
Re:Well technically it's not
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
Basically this is idiotic bullshit so that he can crow that OS X is an OS but unix is not.
Well we can use that logic against him. According to his definition 4.4BSD Lite is not an OS. However FreeBSD is. It has a gui, compilers and hundreds of apps. The same can be said of any linux distro or for that matter any commercial OS.
Also the point of servers is brought up. If I am running a server I want the OS to be as minimalistic as possible. I don't want X, games, and various utilites on it. I just want bind, ssh and whatever administration tools I need running on it. While his points may have some validity for a desktop OS he does fails to take the server market into account.
And I can't believe that anyone would choose Linux for this. No disrespecting Linux, but software that has been written specifically for one set of hardware is going to be a lot more stable and faster than a general purpose O/S like Linux.
While I'll admit AIX is very good at getting stuff done, many admins complain about it. Now if linux were ported to it many of these admins would probally be happier. Also Linux resembles Solaris, BSD, and other unix's alot more than AIX so they can better sell Mainframes to businesses running hetterogenous networks based on the fact that retraining IT is minimized. Not to mention the admins are happy and have less anger to redirect into there LARTS.
Because it uses XFree86 4.0 as the default. That's a pretty significant change.
Its more of a timing issue that X 4.0 got in a.0 release. Basically Redhat has a three step release cycle. Release a buggy.0. Fix it with a.1 and get it almost right with a.2. Then continually support.2 releases with bugfixes three major versions back.
XFree86 4.x is mostly stable although there are major security issues and I only use it with my ATI All-in Wonder because the 3.3.6 driver for rage128 is terribly buggy with that particular card. However, I'm not going to use it on my other machines until OpenBSD includes it in there base distro or says they fully auduted it and are not including it for non-security reasons.
Since the new kernel is significant as well I'm curious to see if they switch to 8.0 when they add that.:-)
Well auctually RH 7.0 is designed so when 2.4.0 comes out all they gotta do is add all the patched that they plan on adding make a SRPP compile it and add it to the updates section of there ftp site. The were kinda banking on 2.4, but lived without it.
There's a hell of a lot more free software for the various unicies though.
Well that is true but due to BeOS's quasi POSIX status a lot of OSS is being ported to it quite easily. I'm not sure if it has an X server available but it makes a good OS for an administrators workstation.
And, yes, they used the 2.96 compiler to compile the entire system from SRPMS, except the kernel. (And 2.95.2 can't do that either.) So 30% is a little low.
Well What exactly is wrong with 2.95.2? Sure 2.6 might have extra optimizations etc, but is it really worth it.
I guess if I think like RedHat I'd say let me put in an unstable gcc and a new major version of rpm in the.0 version and when gcc 3.0 comes out well be the firt ones to have it while the other distros struggle to keep up. Well newsflash buddy: Debian will be behind because thats the debian way. Slackware users will just grab the tarballs make bootstrap and rebuilt glibc and probally half there system amnually and mabey make slackware packages themselves even though they'll never use them. Suse will integrate it in a timely fashion and FreeBSD will initially include it as a port and when its proven stable it will become the default compiler.
Btw I use 2.95.2 to compile kernels all the time on slackware. Evev pgcc compiles kernels although I only tried it once. No core dumps or anything.
Well answer this question. The article claims that there is a kernel compiler that is one of the stabler gcc versions. I still got errors compiling the kernel. Now I didn't try especially hard to make it work. It was a friends machine and the bloated, wanna dymanically load modules like solaris so I can be plug and play like M$ default redhat kernel worked fine. I gave up after gcc -v revealed that the boys at redhat decided to put the buggy version of a compiler that won't compile most rpm's. I use to give newbies Redhat and tell them to learn to hate it on there own and switch to slack or FreeBSD, but Now i think I will be giving those people SuSe. Besides German pages rock!!!
And who's desperate enough to do MS's bidding on Windows API hacking? Certainly not the core WINE folk... but Corel is!
This could lead to problems if they continue with Wine development. There could be problems with anyone who's seen windows source code contributing to Wine. Microsoft could then tangle wine in a slew of legal battles. Then again maybe Microsoft might auctually allow them to develop a unix.NET opensource. Perhaps if they use the sendmail model of giving a free version a year behind in development we could all benifit.
And under the laws that exist now, all that shit I just mentioned is illeg
And under Hitler's regime hiding jews from the secret police was illegeal. Obvisiously your examples are not as extreme, but morality and legality are two seperate things.
So you get your feeling of "signifigance" from the Operating System on your desktop?
Signifigance has nothing to do with it. Linux is suppose to be about choice. Well some of us chose FreeBSD instead. I run both. Linux has its advantages,as does BSD. I tend to go more towards BSD for several reasons but sometimes I use linux. Other people feel the same way.
I'm for private colonization of the moon. A few volunteers locate themselves in some third world nation and build rockets from surplus parts that they launch to the moon to build a colony with.
If this is feasable it would be perfect assuming we can aqquire a pair of tranceivers for those high speed wireless connections that the mars probe uses. It might be what we need to acclerate space colonization. Unfortunatly this is just a pipe dream
Thats why you install developer. I personally recompile a good portion of the rpms from sources and mess a little with the spec files. But then again thays only when I'm admining a redhat Box Slackware is my Linux of choice but I like to stick with *BSD.
The oldest? That would discard slow connections before they fully connect.
While this is true assuming you have the bandwidth It will work in most cases. However as long as you send enough packets to a network you can make it unuseable even if the router/server dosen't auctually crash. Although if you know your gated-foo well enough you can easily set it up to reserve routes for the internal network and dial in to the network. From there you could start analizing the attack and hopefully track down the script kiddies.
Older, text-based versions of WordPerfect were ported to Unix long ago.
While there are definately a fair share of commercial wordproccessors for unix that run in console mode, there are no opensource ones available, at least to my knowledge. There is a decent selection of X word proccessors, and as a matter of principle I plan on writing my Masters Thesis in latex or postscript so I could do it in vi. However, it'd be nice if I had the choice of using an opensourse console word proccessor. Reminds me of the time when I didn't associate a blue screen with Bad OS design
can you ugrade your entire os with one command?
No unfortunatly it takes me three. I have to change to/usr/src, cvsup the branch of the FreeBSD tree I wish to use and type make world.
Now the question does your OS/Distro of choice actively maintain a stable source branch in addition to the release and current branches, or do you just install an older version and update the hell out of it?
Its sad to see that a company that is signifigantly benifiting the opensource community is dying. Obvisiously Corel Draw and Word Perfect have been dying for a while now, but its still sad. Fortunatly, Corels benifits of a better WINE and work on the QT version of Mozilla will continue to live on. Is there any way Corel can auctual become profitable, or should they just continue to suck money out of investors until they die? If they do the OSS comunity will benifit. Hopefully though before they die they release the source code to Wordperfect for DOS so maybe all us Linux/*BSD users out there will finally have a console Word Proccessor without having to learn latex or install dosemu.
I no longer entrust my privacy or security in the hands of the powers that be.
The RSA Algorithim has been around for a while. Its published and there are many implementations that you can see the source of. Now I'm against kew escrow and goverment email sniffers, but I trust the RSA algorithim.
Also isn't creating more and more programs in dedicated kernel mode a really, really bad idea?
Well it can be problemsome, however when you have a customizeable kernel and can decide if a particular function (in this case http daemoning) is performed in userspace or kernel space there's not really a problem. In such a case if an isp can simply unload the httpd module if thet determine its unstable and let apache handle the rest. Also if the kernel httpd proves useful someone might add cgi support to it and make it more useful.
Watcoms Cross compiling abilities could add new Uses to FreeDOS. For Embedded developers FreeDOS/Watcom is the perfect combination. The ability to create 16 bit code means you can port applications to run on an 8088, and many older palmtops that use dos are powered by that venerable chip.
You also have to realize there is a distinct difference between Linus' and Sun's attitude. Linus' main reason for controlling the code is to keep its current development model. If you write a new driver or port it to a new architecture, Linus will happily integrate it into the kernel, as long as you stick to the coding conventions he establishes and are willing to manage or have someone else manage our code the way the rest of the kernel is. THe main reason reiser isn't integrated into the kernel is the author prefered his current development model. Sun on the other hand want to control Java so it can shape it into something that makes it the most money.
This is a distinct difference. Linus's goal is quality control while Sun want to make money.
I have to partiially agree with you. I definatly would not like my data available to the world. However, in a business envirorment it sometimes makes sense to keep documents on a file server so other members of your project can QA, review, or do whatever it is there suppose to do with your work. Now if you are using a network file system with local caching such as Coda, or groupware like Lotus Notes you will have a local copy. Althought with coda its a cache and you don't have control as to exactly whats kept locally. Anyway Hardrives cost money. There releatively cheap, but a terabyte raid array serving files to 1000 computers which contains 10 gigs of programs and data that would otherwise need to be on each individual computer means you can buy clients with hard drives 10 gigs smaller than neccessary.
I also agree with you on privacy, but what about the other issue, you being able to access your data from other computers. Sure its great and dandy to have a laptop with eight hours of battery life, but its also nice to have vmware or sshd running on your computer so you can access your data from someones elses computer. Sure if someone really wants to get in to your computer they'll find a way, but the benifits is worth the risks.
Slashdot Mirror
I've tried tons of floppies tons of drives tons of machines. Many disks don't work. I once collected all the floppies in my house stacked them up, make some purty TOMSRTBT labels and proceded to put the foot high stack through the TOMSRTBT install script about 15% worked. I don't know mabey its just me.
I'm sure MS uses Cisco PIX firewalls, not some ghetto 486 with openbsd
Well there obvisiously using Cisco because Cisco poses the least direct competition. However, a PIII OpenBSD box makes an excellent firewall for and incomming T3. Ditto for 486 w/ cable. However being Cisco products serve a limited functionality compared to a PC, for high end applications a dedicated firewall or dedicated router firewall product would be most cost effective.
I read someting somewhere about a drive in dev putting 30-40mb on a standard floppy?.
Well I'm no expert in Magnetic storage but I'll tell you the average 3.5"" floppy won't successfully take a 1.72 meg low level format after a couple of months on the shelf. If you ever tried getting TOMSRTBT on a floppy you know what I'm talking about.
Basically this is idiotic bullshit so that he can crow that OS X is an OS but unix is not.
Well we can use that logic against him. According to his definition 4.4BSD Lite is not an OS. However FreeBSD is. It has a gui, compilers and hundreds of apps. The same can be said of any linux distro or for that matter any commercial OS.
Also the point of servers is brought up. If I am running a server I want the OS to be as minimalistic as possible. I don't want X, games, and various utilites on it. I just want bind, ssh and whatever administration tools I need running on it. While his points may have some validity for a desktop OS he does fails to take the server market into account.
And I can't believe that anyone would choose Linux for this. No disrespecting Linux, but software that has been written specifically for one set of hardware is going to be a lot more stable and faster than a general purpose O/S like Linux.
While I'll admit AIX is very good at getting stuff done, many admins complain about it. Now if linux were ported to it many of these admins would probally be happier. Also Linux resembles Solaris, BSD, and other unix's alot more than AIX so they can better sell Mainframes to businesses running hetterogenous networks based on the fact that retraining IT is minimized. Not to mention the admins are happy and have less anger to redirect into there LARTS.
Because it uses XFree86 4.0 as the default. That's a pretty significant change. .0 release. Basically Redhat has a three step release cycle. Release a buggy .0. Fix it with a .1 and get it almost right with a .2. Then continually support .2 releases with bugfixes three major versions back.
:-)
Well auctually RH 7.0 is designed so when 2.4.0 comes out all they gotta do is add all the patched that they plan on adding make a SRPP compile it and add it to the updates section of there ftp site. The were kinda banking on 2.4, but lived without it.
Its more of a timing issue that X 4.0 got in a
XFree86 4.x is mostly stable although there are major security issues and I only use it with my ATI All-in Wonder because the 3.3.6 driver for rage128 is terribly buggy with that particular card. However, I'm not going to use it on my other machines until OpenBSD includes it in there base distro or says they fully auduted it and are not including it for non-security reasons.
Since the new kernel is significant as well I'm curious to see if they switch to 8.0 when they add that.
There's a hell of a lot more free software for the various unicies though.
Well that is true but due to BeOS's quasi POSIX status a lot of OSS is being ported to it quite easily. I'm not sure if it has an X server available but it makes a good OS for an administrators workstation.
Auctually you gotta payfor the full BeOS.
And, yes, they used the 2.96 compiler to compile the entire system from SRPMS, except the kernel. (And 2.95.2 can't do that either.) So 30% is a little low. .0 version and when gcc 3.0 comes out well be the firt ones to have it while the other distros struggle to keep up. Well newsflash buddy: Debian will be behind because thats the debian way. Slackware users will just grab the tarballs make bootstrap and rebuilt glibc and probally half there system amnually and mabey make slackware packages themselves even though they'll never use them. Suse will integrate it in a timely fashion and FreeBSD will initially include it as a port and when its proven stable it will become the default compiler.
Btw I use 2.95.2 to compile kernels all the time on slackware. Evev pgcc compiles kernels although I only tried it once. No core dumps or anything.
Well What exactly is wrong with 2.95.2? Sure 2.6 might have extra optimizations etc, but is it really worth it.
I guess if I think like RedHat I'd say let me put in an unstable gcc and a new major version of rpm in the
Well answer this question. The article claims that there is a kernel compiler that is one of the stabler gcc versions. I still got errors compiling the kernel. Now I didn't try especially hard to make it work. It was a friends machine and the bloated, wanna dymanically load modules like solaris so I can be plug and play like M$ default redhat kernel worked fine. I gave up after gcc -v revealed that the boys at redhat decided to put the buggy version of a compiler that won't compile most rpm's. I use to give newbies Redhat and tell them to learn to hate it on there own and switch to slack or FreeBSD, but Now i think I will be giving those people SuSe. Besides German pages rock!!!
And who's desperate enough to do MS's bidding on Windows API hacking? Certainly not the core WINE folk... but Corel is!
.NET opensource. Perhaps if they use the sendmail model of giving a free version a year behind in development we could all benifit.
This could lead to problems if they continue with Wine development. There could be problems with anyone who's seen windows source code contributing to Wine. Microsoft could then tangle wine in a slew of legal battles. Then again maybe Microsoft might auctually allow them to develop a unix
And under the laws that exist now, all that shit I just mentioned is illeg
And under Hitler's regime hiding jews from the secret police was illegeal. Obvisiously your examples are not as extreme, but morality and legality are two seperate things.
So you get your feeling of "signifigance" from the Operating System on your desktop?
Signifigance has nothing to do with it. Linux is suppose to be about choice. Well some of us chose FreeBSD instead. I run both. Linux has its advantages,as does BSD. I tend to go more towards BSD for several reasons but sometimes I use linux. Other people feel the same way.
I'm moving to Russia!!
I'm for private colonization of the moon. A few volunteers locate themselves in some third world nation and build rockets from surplus parts that they launch to the moon to build a colony with.
If this is feasable it would be perfect assuming we can aqquire a pair of tranceivers for those high speed wireless connections that the mars probe uses. It might be what we need to acclerate space colonization. Unfortunatly this is just a pipe dream
Thats why you install developer. I personally recompile a good portion of the rpms from sources and mess a little with the spec files. But then again thays only when I'm admining a redhat Box Slackware is my Linux of choice but I like to stick with *BSD.
The oldest? That would discard slow connections before they fully connect.
While this is true assuming you have the bandwidth It will work in most cases. However as long as you send enough packets to a network you can make it unuseable even if the router/server dosen't auctually crash. Although if you know your gated-foo well enough you can easily set it up to reserve routes for the internal network and dial in to the network. From there you could start analizing the attack and hopefully track down the script kiddies.
Older, text-based versions of WordPerfect were ported to Unix long ago.
While there are definately a fair share of commercial wordproccessors for unix that run in console mode, there are no opensource ones available, at least to my knowledge. There is a decent selection of X word proccessors, and as a matter of principle I plan on writing my Masters Thesis in latex or postscript so I could do it in vi. However, it'd be nice if I had the choice of using an opensourse console word proccessor. Reminds me of the time when I didn't associate a blue screen with Bad OS design
can you ugrade your entire os with one command? /usr/src, cvsup the branch of the FreeBSD tree I wish to use and type make world.
No unfortunatly it takes me three. I have to change to
Now the question does your OS/Distro of choice actively maintain a stable source branch in addition to the release and current branches, or do you just install an older version and update the hell out of it?
Its sad to see that a company that is signifigantly benifiting the opensource community is dying. Obvisiously Corel Draw and Word Perfect have been dying for a while now, but its still sad. Fortunatly, Corels benifits of a better WINE and work on the QT version of Mozilla will continue to live on. Is there any way Corel can auctual become profitable, or should they just continue to suck money out of investors until they die? If they do the OSS comunity will benifit. Hopefully though before they die they release the source code to Wordperfect for DOS so maybe all us Linux/*BSD users out there will finally have a console Word Proccessor without having to learn latex or install dosemu.
I no longer entrust my privacy or security in the hands of the powers that be.
The RSA Algorithim has been around for a while. Its published and there are many implementations that you can see the source of. Now I'm against kew escrow and goverment email sniffers, but I trust the RSA algorithim.
Uh ok where do I start on this one?
Also isn't creating more and more programs in dedicated kernel mode a really, really bad idea?
Well it can be problemsome, however when you have a customizeable kernel and can decide if a particular function (in this case http daemoning) is performed in userspace or kernel space there's not really a problem. In such a case if an isp can simply unload the httpd module if thet determine its unstable and let apache handle the rest. Also if the kernel httpd proves useful someone might add cgi support to it and make it more useful.
Watcoms Cross compiling abilities could add new Uses to FreeDOS. For Embedded developers FreeDOS/Watcom is the perfect combination. The ability to create 16 bit code means you can port applications to run on an 8088, and many older palmtops that use dos are powered by that venerable chip.
You also have to realize there is a distinct difference between Linus' and Sun's attitude. Linus' main reason for controlling the code is to keep its current development model. If you write a new driver or port it to a new architecture, Linus will happily integrate it into the kernel, as long as you stick to the coding conventions he establishes and are willing to manage or have someone else manage our code the way the rest of the kernel is. THe main reason reiser isn't integrated into the kernel is the author prefered his current development model. Sun on the other hand want to control Java so it can shape it into something that makes it the most money.
This is a distinct difference. Linus's goal is quality control while Sun want to make money.
I have to partiially agree with you. I definatly would not like my data available to the world. However, in a business envirorment it sometimes makes sense to keep documents on a file server so other members of your project can QA, review, or do whatever it is there suppose to do with your work. Now if you are using a network file system with local caching such as Coda, or groupware like Lotus Notes you will have a local copy. Althought with coda its a cache and you don't have control as to exactly whats kept locally. Anyway Hardrives cost money. There releatively cheap, but a terabyte raid array serving files to 1000 computers which contains 10 gigs of programs and data that would otherwise need to be on each individual computer means you can buy clients with hard drives 10 gigs smaller than neccessary.
I also agree with you on privacy, but what about the other issue, you being able to access your data from other computers. Sure its great and dandy to have a laptop with eight hours of battery life, but its also nice to have vmware or sshd running on your computer so you can access your data from someones elses computer. Sure if someone really wants to get in to your computer they'll find a way, but the benifits is worth the risks.